Letters to the Editor

Nellie B. Quander Graduate Student in Education, George Mason
University Past President, National Association of Elementary School
Principals Alexandria, Va.

A recent article in Education Week reported views of the new
secretary of education, William J. Bennett, regarding the role of
higher standards in the education of economically and educationally
disadvantaged students ("Bennett Maintains Higher Standards Benefit the
Poor," Education Week, Feb. 20, 1985).

Mr. Bennett was quoted as saying, "Those who do not have the
advantages of the wealthy ... are the people who need good teaching the
most. They are the people who need standards the most, not for purposes
of punishment, but for purposes of aspiration, for internalizing the
standards."

There are probably few educators who would disagree with Mr.
Bennett's contention that the economically and educationally
disadvantaged need good teaching, but it is impossible to agree with
his assumption that higher standards for these students will serve to
raise their aspirations and their educational achievement levels, or
that higher standards will improve the quality of their
instruction.

Merely setting higher academic standards for poor and minority
students will not bring academic excellence to these students because
such standards are based on a misleading model about schooling in our
nation. They divert the attention of educators toward superficial
issues and away from the practices that make crucial differences in the
education of students from low-socioeconomic-status (ses) families and
minorities.

Educators should focus on the real problems that are impeding the
education of low ses and minority students--problems that will not be
resolved by merely setting higher standards for those students.

Higher standards set in an atmosphere where each student has an
equal opportunity to succeed may, indeed, serve to raise the
aspirations of all students and subsequently their academic
achievement. But often our schools do not operate under a paradigm of
equality and fairness for all.

In the past, education has been viewed by our society as offering an
equal opportunity for success to all children. Education, however,
cannot be separated from political power. Because the poor and ethnic
minorities have had little political power, they have not fared well in
our schools.

Numerous studies conducted in recent years by sociologists and
educators support this. They have identified a number of variables that
work against low ses and minority students, including teacher
expectations, classroom practices, and school financing. The results of
these studies should be considered before new standards are
developed.

Our schools have not been successful in producing the same kind of
academic success for poor students as for middle-class students.
Numerous studies indicate that socioeconomic status is a major
predictor of academic success. This is devastating to all poor
children, but more devastating to blacks, Hispanics, and American
Indians because a large percentage of their ethnic groups are poor.

The low academic achievement of poor and minority students is
closely related to the low expectations of their teachers. Many studies
found significant evidence that teachers tend to form expectations
about their students' potential for achievement and about how they may
be expected to behave. These expectations may be based on unfounded
notions about students' ethnic backgrounds and these notions change the
teacher's behavior in ways that deter the academic progress of students
who may be poor or of an ethnic minority. Teachers' low expectations
and changed instructional techniques often render their poor students
helpless and put them in a position in which they cannot alter their
academic fate. Such practices place the full responsibility for change
on the students and not on the school.

Studies conducted for more than a decade have consistently shown
that the average white student does better academically than the
average black student and that the difference is signific Studies
conducted for more than a decade have consistently shown that the
average white student does better academically than the average black
student and that the difference is significant. This may seem to
suggest that blacks are innately less able than whites, but when other
variables such as iq, ses, sex, and age are controlled, race emerges as
a significant determinant of achievement in the classroom. This
indicates that teachers' attitudes about students' academic abilities
are tied to preconceptions about their ethnic backgrounds.

Instructional techniques, grading practices, grouping procedures,
and the methods used to discipline students are among routines found to
significantly influence academic achievement in ways that deter poor
and minority students.

The Mid-Atlantic Center for Race Equity summarized research relating
to low teacher expectations as follows: Teachers are likely to interact
more with high achievers and ignore and interrupt low achievers more
frequently; ask more and higher-level questions of high achievers and
provide low achievers with questions that require simple recall; follow
up with probing questions for high achievers and call on someone else
if a low achiever is unable to provide a prompt, accurate response;
provide a longer wait time for high achievers to respond to a question
and cut off response time for low achievers who hesitate.

The center also reported that teachers seat high achievers closer to
the teacher's usual position and cluster low achievers farther away;
praise high achievers more often and criticize low achievers more
frequently; provide supportive communications for high achievers and
engage in dominating behaviors with low achievers; provide high
achievers with detailed feedback and give less frequent, less accurate,
and less precise feedback to low achievers; and demand more work and
effort for high achievers and accept less from low achievers.

Poor students, who by Mr. Bennett's admission need the best
instruction, frequently live in areas where their schools are funded at
significantly lower levels than the schools of middle-class children.
Despite the efforts of various legislative bodies and many judicial
decisions designed to equalize the funding for public schools,
significant disparities persist.

I have no doubt that Mr. Bennett is sincere in his desire to improve
educational opportunities for poor and minority students. I suggest,
however, that merely raising standards for students amounts to blaming
the victim and tends to deny the existence of the special problems
encountered by these students. Raising standards for students does not
address the standards that must be set for our schools.

Rudy Pouch Director of Special Services Ellsworth-Kanopolis United
School District #327 Ellsworth, Kan.

I'd like to make a few comments on a recent article about national
testing for new teachers ("Study Panel Backs National Test for All New
Teachers," Education Week, March 20, 1985).

Do we need yet another study? It would appear that almost all of the
high-powered thinkers have again missed the boat or else have become a
part of the incompetence they object to.

No, salaries will not produce a long-term solution, nor will a
national licensing examination for teachers. The boat I feel many
educators have missed is the "boat of control." A lack of discipine, or
control, and a lack of respect for teachers and schools are the real
monsters we must tame.

One can look back to lawsuits and Supreme Court rulings to see where
the erosion began. Flimsy claims against teachers because students
failed to learn to read or to learn a specific fact, claims of abuse
when firm discipline was used, and parents' failure to admit that they
are a part of the problem and their tendency to place the blame
elsewhere have all contributed to the decline in control.

When control left the classroom and school, so did some of the
desire to push for excellence or do more than was required. Some
teachers just did their jobs, hoping that the majority of students
might learn and achieve. Yes, it's sad that a professional would fall
into that trap, but after trying so long to seek excellence, one tends
to bend under the pressure. When just touching a student can lead to
charges of "battery," the human, caring side of education tends to
suffer and ultimately the students suffer.

There must be a wedding of parents and schools, a return to some of
the lost, time-proven standards and rules that made education great. Oh
yes, I have heard how teachers and schools have "lost" respect, but one
would have to look more closely at the factors leading to the decline
in discipline to find the causes of that loss. That's yet another
study.

We don't need another panel, study group, or commission. We do need
to fund education, to return to some basic rules of conduct for
students and teachers, and to get on with the job at hand--educating
young people.

I read with some interest your feature story outlining the
Governor's Center for Educational Innovation and Technology in Virginia
("The Varina Mission: Testing Reform for Others," Education Week, March
27, 1985). In particular, I found John I. Goodlad's remarks about
laboratory schools quite interesting.

It is apparent that Mr. Goodlad's experiences with lab schools were
confined to California some years ago. The laboratory movement is not
dead or fearful of its future.

There are more than 120 laboratory schools all over the country.
Rather than being unclear of their appropriate function, they have
chosen to diversify and have changed to meet the needs of their
students and communities. There is no single model of a laboratory
school. Some are demonstration sites for teaching techniques, some are
research centers, and others provide the setting for training future
teachers.

It would seem to me that an inherent strength of American education
has been the avoidance of a single model of teaching, learning, or
schooling. I applaud Gov. Charles S. Robb's courage in trying something
new and different, even if it is costly.

I would also invite Mr. Goodlad to visit laboratory schools in the
near future to see first-hand some of the positive, exciting things
that are happening in education today.

Rudolf Flesch Author Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.

The Commentary by Dianne Sirna Mancus and Curtis K. Carlson
("Political Philosophy and Reading Make a Dangerous Mix," Education
Week, Feb. 27, 1985) has been brought to my attention. Since it
mentions me as the author of Why Johnny Can't Read in the same breath
with such political right-wingers as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Phyllis
Schlafly, and Mel and Norma Gabler, whose general views I sharply
disagree with, I'd like to offer a brief reply.

My books, Why Johnny Can't Read (1955) and Why Johnny Still Can't
Read (1981), deal with the wholly unscientific methods of teaching
reading used in most of our public and private schools. The scientific
method is systematic phonics. Its superiority has been proven in 124
studies since 1911.

The methods used in our schools are not only ineffective but
actually harmful. They are the reason why an estimated one-third of
American adults cannot read safety warnings, want ads, or street signs.
They are also the reason for the millions of children labeled dyslexic
or learning-disabled.

Even those who can read are trained to guess the meaning of
unfamiliar words when they first see them in print. They are baffled by
such words as "egregious," "etiology," or "subsume," and can't tell the
difference between others such as "portend" and "pretend." Their grasp
of English stays limited and their education is stunted.

This is the reason why our educational achievements are dropping and
we're falling behind countries like Japan, Russia, Germany, and
France.

Joan D. Abrams Superintendent of School The Public Schools of Red
Bank Red Bank, N.J.

I read your recent article on substitute teachers ("Substitutes: The
'Other' Teacher Shortage," Education Week, April 3, 1985).It was very
well written and informative. Obtaining substitutes has long been a
problem in Red Bank, as well as in the other districts in the state.
However, there are several things we do to try to overcome the
problem.

Teachers must have lesson plans available for unexpected absences.
When it is known that they will be out of the class, more elaborate
preparations must be made.

We have a substitute handbook that not only gives information about
the school plant but also has an orientation to mastery learning, our
major strategy for instructional delivery.

Principals or their surrogates make it a point to meet new
substitutes for the purpose of orienting them.

Substitutes are provided with a form on which they provide feedback
about their problems. Information is shared with the regular classroom
teacher and with the administration.

We have what I believe to be a most innovative policy for the
payment of substitutes. Its purpose is to develop a cadre of
experienced people who are committed to the Red Bank Borough school
system. As of Sept. 1, 1984, substitutes who have served in continuous
years receive, beginning on their 100th day of service, $45 per day,
instead of $35 or $40. After completing 180 days of service in
continuous years, they receive $50 per day.

I do know that because of the promise of up to $50 a day we have
several people who make us the first choice for their services. No
doubt as regular substitute pay rises, the longevity stipend will be
raised, too.

I was appalled to read the item about John D. Klenk, the Education
Department official who was forced to cancel his speech before a group
of Louisiana educators because he would not delete references to
tuition tax credits and education vouchers ("E.D. Official Cancels
Speech in Face of Censorship Demand," Education Week, April 3,
1985).

I thought that educated people, especially teachers, had open and
inquiring minds, that they were willing to explore and discuss new
concepts and ideas, and that they were supposed to teach about and
respect fundamental American rights such as freedom of speech. But I
guess Louisiana's affiliate of the National Education Association is
afraid to hear and discuss new ideas that legitimately recognize the
natural right of parents to choose an education suitable for their
children and that will economically empower them to freely exercise
that right.

Remember, teachers of the Louisiana Association of Educators, the
words of Justice Louis D. Brandeis: "Men feared witches and burned
women. It is the function of speech to free persons from the bondage of
irrational fears."

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.